Thread: What If the Copyright Act of 1909 Was Still Law?
View Single Post
Old 01-03-2011, 10:04 PM   #25
Kali Yuga
Professional Contrarian
Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Kali Yuga's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitabi View Post
I mean what yardstick do they use to come up with a number like 70 or 95 years after death? These numbers sound as random as 28 or 56 years to me.
They aren't entirely random.

"Life plus" generally makes sense, in part because the creator can perish at any moment after the content is actually created. Does it makes sense that if the author dies 5 days after a book is published, it should go straight into public domain, thus relieving the publisher of any need to pay royalties for the book?

For signatories of the Berne Convention, the minimum term is life + 50, presumably to provide a good incentive and cushion for the estate. In addition, most of Europe was at life + 70 at the time of the last extension in the US. The idea in the US was to both harmonize copyright terms, as well as keep a "trade balance" at least equal in the US. Like it or not, content is a big revenue generator for the United States, and that revenue is largely lost when a work goes into public domain.

I might add that someone somewhere is going to bitch endlessly no matter what term is selected.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitabi
Most of us working stiffs stop getting paid once we die or retire. So, why should a copyright exist after death?
The idea of copyright is to provide the creator a degree of control over their work as well as an incentive to do the work.

Contrary to your claim, today most "working stiffs" do get paid upon retirement by Social Security. You can also pass on revenue generators to descendants. Social Security has survivor benefits; life insurance may pay out; stocks, bonds, mutual funds, interest-bearing savings accounts, and other financial instruments do not evaporate upon the owner's demise, and can be willed to individual(s) and/or organizations.

So, this really isn't much different.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitabi
On the contrary, if you believe that creativity must be rewarded or if you are plain greedy, why not a perpetual copyright?
There are numerous social benefits to works going into public domain after a limited term.

Estates, descendants and families also don't necessarily exist forever. As such, stewards of a perpetual content would inevitably lose track and/or become too divided to be manageable.
Kali Yuga is offline   Reply With Quote